Business ethics
... for monetary compensation for lost revenue. The RIAA argued that song swapping via Napster has lost the music industry more than $300 million in lost sales. Aside from the RIAA other parties have filed lawsuits including rap star Dr. Dre and Metallica accusing Napster of copyright infringement and racketeering. Napster and the RIAA had to battle out the issue in court and many debates have escalated whether Napster was unethical and in violation of copyright laws. A U.S. District Judge granted the RIAA’s request for an injunction and ordered Napster to stop making copyrighted recordings that were available for download. However just a few hours before Napster would have had to shut down a court of appeals granted Napster a last-minute relief until the lawsuit would be tried in court. In its battling defense with the RIAA, Napster used three past rulings that set precedents on copyright infringement to support its argument. Sony Betamax, the 1992 Audio Home Recoding Act, and the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. In Sony Betamax case, the Motion Pictures Association of America filed suit against Sony claiming that its new video recording technology would open up doors to widespread piracy and film production. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a new technology must be simply capable of substantial non-infringing uses in order to be protected by law. Napster believed that MP3 technology had legitimate uses and should have been protected just as Sony was. Napster also applied the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act, which permits people to copy music for personal use. Napster argued that the law applies to music downloads because the music is being copied for personal use and not redistributed for profit. And lastly the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act which Napster used to argue that the company has broad protection from copyright claims because it functions like search engine rather than having direct involvement with music swapping. The counsels on Napsters behalf also argued that the users are not infringing any copyrights because all the copyrighting is noncommercial since users are downloading at no charge or fees. They argued that they are not legally liable, just as manufacturers of VCR’s are not responsible if VCR owners copy the movies they rent. Napster software even has several warnings against providing copyrighted material. However, the RIAA saw Napster as pirate helpers. Counsel of the RIAA argued that as long as you have knowledge that what you are doing is causing infringement than you are just as liable. Despite its claims and arguments Napster was found guilty of infringement of the RIAA’s musical recordings and the ruling was upheld on February 12, 2001. The District Court of Appeals rejected and proved false by argument all of Napster’s defense tactics. The company was ordered to stop allowing its millions of users to download and share copyrighted material. Soon after, Napster came to a great downfall and collapsed in 2002 when it laid off its entire staff and liquidated the company. This case has had many implications on the legal world. This case set a landmark standard for copyright laws and limits unethical use of the Internet to harm other industries such as the RIAA. This case sets borders and infuses ethics into the business practices of new technology. As we modernize and utilize new tools such as the Internet it is very difficult to predict whether the tools we create will harm or benefit us in the future. There are no clear guidelines set when new unseen technologies are introduced to the business world. The Napster case has now set new laws and guidelines for modern companies to follow so that they don’t fall into the same problems and infringe similar copyright protection laws of music artists and music industries. Many have debated what is ethical and immoral about the Napster case. Some have stated that Napster is promoting piracy and steals from hardworking music artists and music industries while other argue that Napster only helps promote new technology and allows people to share similar interests for non-profiting reasons. From my point of few I believe that both Napster and the RIAA are being unethical in their business practices. Although Napster helped promote small musicians who are seeking out publicity and distribution of their material might seem like a good cause, on the major part Napster was primarily used to trade copyrighted material and it is well aware of that. In essence Napster in some w...